‘Wind in the Willows’ began as bed-time story

Press, 22 April 1986, Page 18

‘Wind in the Willows’ began as bed-time story

The “Wind in the Willows,” one of the favourite children’s stories, was written by a man once Secretary of the Bank of England. And at 39 Kenneth Grahame was one of the youngest men appointed to that position in the bank’s history. If Kenneth Grahamd’s son, Alastair (nicknamed “Mouse”), had not been born, it is said that “Wind in the Willows” might never have been written. The story’s first telling came on the night of Alastair’s fourth birthday, in May, 1904. The tale, in a bedtime story form, was heard by little Alastair for

the next three years on nights when son and father were alone without nurse or governess. The tale was not set to paper. It was a private story, a story belonging to Mouse and his father, that story of the mole, the rat and the badger. The first instance of the story appearing on paper was when “Mouse” went for a seaside holiday while his parents went elsewhere. Not able to bear the suspense of what was happening to the characters, “Mouse” made his father continue the story in letters to him. The next problem was

that half of the book had been written down — the first half was only in “Mouse’s” memory and the author’s own. The task was finished but the first publishers to see it refused it. The then President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, had a hand in the successful publishing of “Wind in the Willows.” Roosevelt had admired Grahame’s previous work and Grahame sent him a copy of the story. After hearing it read aloud to young children, Roosevelt was enchanted and told the publishing

firm of Charles Scribney that it simply must be published. A. A. Milne, who created Winnie-the-Pooh, described the book as a "household” one — one that appealed to every member of the household. The first edition was published in October, 1908; another came out before that Christmas. Many more followed. Although a subsequent success, the book initially had a mixed reception. “The Times” described it thus: “As a contribution to natural history the work is negligible.”